Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe Race
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 386 of 410 (459819)
03-10-2008 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by ICANT
03-09-2008 11:36 PM


Re: Evidence
Frustrating isn't it?
Regarding singularities and the like, it's totally analogous to what I told Straggler here: http://EvC Forum: What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only) -->EvC Forum: What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only)
Rob:
There is no directly observable evidence of the big bang.
It is therefore strictly not empirical. But it is held as 'scientific' because it assumes a material origin. That cannot be proven...ever - minus omnipotence.
So back to my question...
If they don't have empirical evidence, then how can they conclude that only material evidence is valid?
Because methodological naturalism is not empirical, it is philsophical, i.e. religious belief.
Their god is a nature God. Mine is the God of nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by ICANT, posted 03-09-2008 11:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Taz, posted 03-10-2008 1:25 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 390 by ICANT, posted 03-10-2008 10:23 AM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 398 of 410 (459946)
03-11-2008 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Rahvin
03-10-2008 11:43 AM


Re: In summation...
Rahvin:
Science takes exactly one thing on faith: that what we observe is actually what is happening. We take on faith that, when we look at the moon at night, we're actually looking at the moon and not trapped inside of the Matrix.
I think you need to be more specific. Since mathematics is the tool used for understanding this stuff, can we not agree that science is faith in logic, and that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way?
Rahvin:
Where we run into problems here is in the explanations to laypeople, particularly laypeople with no physics training whatsoever, and most especially with laypeople who have no physics education and have a predetermined cosmological view based on their religion.
Furthermore, what is your theistic position? I ask, because the model you refer to, is based upon a philosophy of materialism, that has certain theistic implications and not others.
Allow me to explain:
Scientific Reasoning vs. Religious Reasoning?
The conflict between science and religion is not over the existence of God because the terms God and reality are synonymous. God / 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality God Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Reality is absolute, ultimate, and sovereign. The question is really one of God’s (or reality's) characteristics or nature.
Is reality a living being, or merely an impersonal material force?
Whatever or whoever reality is; reality is God by definition. It is what it is or I am who I am.
The only difference between the philosophies of naturalism and monotheism is the nature of God. All reasoning is philosophical. Whether we use inductive or deductive reasoning (and we rely almost exclusively on deduction) contradiction and coherence are what we seek in order to verify or refute premises and conclusions.
It matters not whether our philosophy is monotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, etc. The deist philosophizes that Theo (God) has left the building. All philosophy is theistic. Even the agnostic is in the same boat, since his philosophy purposely excludes deciding the question of Theo. To put it plainly, without theism, there is no such thing as an agnostic. The absolute character of reality (irrespective of its/his other qualities) does not give us the option of excluding ourselves from philosophizing about Theo.
So Rahvin, my point is not to challenge the logic of your view. It is logical. My point (and the point of many others) is that all of us smuggle in a theological view that is not directly observable by way of empirical observation.
You don't have the authority to exalt a 'materialistic worldview' of reality as objective and unbiased.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Rahvin, posted 03-10-2008 11:43 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Admin, posted 03-11-2008 10:43 AM Rob has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024